That was the year that was.
This time last year, we thought we would start 2015 with everything changed after a "Yes" vote, or in the same old place after a "no" vote.
Turns out we were wrong.
At this point, it seems that everything has changed after a "no" vote.
Having said that, it seems to me far too soon to assess the effect of the referendum result in full. I am old enough to have seen an SNP 'surge" in the 1970s, and minded also of the polls in the months before the SNP's win in 2011 - which suggested an inevitable defeat.
Despite the best efforts of the Better Together campaign, accurate predictions in politics are notoriously unreliable, and nothing should be taken for granted.
However, it does seem timely to perform an end-of-year review of the referendum campaign overall, and to reflect on what has changed, or appears to have done so.
Mostly, the campaign was disappointing. In the beginning, both sides seemed content to run the discussion as if it was a party political issue, rather than the future of a country at stake.
That being the case, it was unsurprising when the argument sometimes developed into which decision would put most money in the voters' pockets.
Increasingly, it became obvious that the real question should not be: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" - but "Why should Scotland be an independent country?"
It seemed the wider implications of self government and a place in the international community were being ignored. Most of the Scottish media, predictably but unsurprisingly, were unwilling, or unable, to present a balanced case.
Questions about how we are governed, whether the Westminster model was fit for purpose in the constituent countries of the UK state, and how voter apathy could be addressed, were all marginalised, as we were fed a diet of fear of change and sentimental references to a 'shared culture'.
Then something happened. Hitherto non-political groups began to organise and make coherent points for progressive change; they were 'bottom up' as opposed to 'top down' and signalled a departure from the political arrangements of the last 30 years or so.
Often non-party aligned, their demands were based on the good of the people rather than the best thing for the party - and they made a huge difference.
Most of all came the wholesale involvement of women in the campaign - from all backgrounds and right across the country. "Women for Independence", formally or otherwise, brought a new, realistic, and people-based approach to the discussion.
It was as if they had tired of the 'middle class, middle aged men' who controlled the arguments and were ready to take the campaign by the scruff of the neck. Generally they spoke not of flags or party advantage or borders but of issues which affected people in their homes and workplaces. They provided the 'connection' to 'real folk' which the campaign had been lacking.
I was minded of the words of Dee Dee Myers, former White House Press Secretary, and author of "Why women should rule the world", who pointed out that research showed that "women are more likely than their male counterparts to initiate and fight for bills that champion social justice, protect the environment, advocate for families, and promote non-violent resolution conflict".
Such developments in the campaign gave hope that a new and more progressive Scotland might be on the horizon, reflecting the wishes of people in Scotland rather than politicians in Westminster - and it's not a simple matter of party politics.
The SNP must follow through on Nicola Sturgeon's declared willingness to work with progressive elements in the country, irrespective of party roots.
Scottish Labour must find a way of listening: to the voters in Scotland and their needs, rather than to their political masters in London and their need for middle England votes. Politicians must re-connect.
As I suggested, predictions are invidious, but hopefully speculation can be allowed at this time of year.
Whether a progressive alliance emerges which will be to the good of Scotland's people is impossible to say. If such a direction is possible within the UK state as it is presently administered may well depend on the results of elections in 2015 and 2016.
Interesting times.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article